> a) the RIGHT way is more than 12 lines of perl code. "the right way" means > that we wont have to do anything but add three small entries in a hash to > allow other compression types. So you are incorrect on the size of this > change. > > b) It is not just a matter of the dpkg tools, nor the users of them. As I > said before, the archive scripts are not paying attention, and may perhaps > choke badly if some one does decide to upload a package for potato using > this compressions (as opposed to returning a REJECT with the proper > notice). > > The proper thing for now is to possibly add a check in dpkg-source for > other than .gz compression, and error out with a reasonably generic note > about it.
Why don't do it, like he said, "the wrong and safe way"? A way that touch existing code as little as possible. And just the capability to *extract* packages, not to create them. And in woody we could have the new multi-compressor system you propose... If we do that, we could start using bz2 in woody. If we don't we'll need to wait another (probably long) release cycle...
